Hopson v. State

• Decision Date: 07 August 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 412,116 Ga. 90
• Parties: HOPSON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

42 S.E. 412

116 Ga. 90

HOPSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 7, 1902

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a dealer in one county receives from a person in another county an order for goods, and ships the same to an agent of the dealer in that county, to be delivered to the person sending the order, and this is accordingly done, the sale is consummated in the latter county; and this is so though the person ordering the goods pays for them in advance, and his name is marked on the package containing them when the same is shipped to the dealer's agent.

2. Recalling a jury in a criminal case, who had retired to consider of their verdict, and, in the absence of the accused and his counsel, and without their consent, giving a second charge, is cause for a new trial, even though this charge be the same in substance as that which had been delivered in the first instance.

Error from superior court, Brooks county; W. N. Spence, Judge.

H. G Hopson was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and brings error. Reversed.

W. S Humphreys and S. S. Bennet, for plaintiff in error.

W. E Thomas, Sol. Gen., and L. W. Branch, for the State.

LUMPKIN P.J.

The indictment charged H. G. Hopson with selling spirituous and intoxicating liquors in Brooks county. There was sufficient evidence to establish, among others, the following facts: Gornto and J. W. Hopson, as partners, were engaged in selling such liquors at Valdosta, in the county of Lowndes, and the latter had a store in Brooks county, in which H. G. Hopson was employed as a clerk. Several persons residing in Brooks county sent by mail orders to Gornto for whisky, in each instance inclosing with the order a remittance covering the price of the liquor desired. These orders were filled by expressing the liquors to J. W. Hopson, who informed the purchasers of the arrival thereof, and they called upon and received the same from H. G. Hopson. The name of each purchaser was upon every express package designed for him, but the shipments were, as stated, made to J. W. Hopson. A regular and systematic business, the nature of which was fully understood by H. G. Hopson, was conducted on the plan indicated above.

1. It is plain that none of the sales were completed in Lowndes county, for in no instance was there in that county a delivery of the liquor to the purchaser. Had the shipments been made directly to the purchasers, the case would have been different; for delivery to the carrier would have been in legal contemplation, delivery to the purchasers. As it was, the seller did not ship to the persons who ordered the liquors, but to his own agent; and the latter, through H. G. Hopson, made the deliveries. The latter was not acting ignorantly, but knew exactly what he was about. The facts that the liquors ordered were...